Nationalism in Asia: Why The Great White Fleet Will Never Quite Go Out of Style
It has become a commonplace observance to note that the Chinese Communist Party has traded the ideology of Communism for a super-heated ideology of nationalism to retain support for its rule among the Chinese people. In fact, as the experiences of all Communist nations to date demonstrates (with the possible exception of the former German Democratic Republic, which made a fetish of anti-nationalism), the two concepts have in practice come largely combined. From the anti-Yanqui posturing of Castros Cuba, to the Junche self-reliance philosophy of North Korea to Stalins legendary calls to protect the Motherland, Communist regimes have always sought to shore up support by entwining the nation and the Party.

The Chinese Communist Party is really no different in this respect from its (former) fraternal brethren. The Chinese leadership, since Maos proclamation of the PRC announcing that the Chinese people have finally stood up, has always used calls to national, ethnic and racial pride as a means of gaining support, particularly among the young.

Additionally, the Chinese view all ethnic Chinese as their citizens, regardless of their nationalities, which is why they have a particularly hard time dealing with patriotic Chinese-Americans. It also explains why the Chinese intelligence servicesso far as we can tell from published accounts, we claim no special knowledge hereprimarily rely on appeals to race to recruit.

The United States saw the raw power of Chinese nationalism among that nations young during the spy plane incident that occurred so early in President Bushs first term that many have forgotten about it entirely. To recap, a routine intelligence mission over international waters and in international airspace was intercepted by Chinese fighters; during the ensuing confrontation a very hot-headed Chinese pilot collided with the U.S. plane, destroying his own aircraft and forcing the U.S. crew to make an emergency landing on Chinese soil.

The uproar that occurred within hours of this episodes reporting in China was a wonder to behold. In what by any measure is the worst breach of the time-worn rules of international diplomacy since Tehran allowed Iranian students to overrun the U.S. embassy there in 1979, the Chinese government allowed the most inflammatory rhetoric and reporting to be used regarding the episode.

The result was a days long siege of the U.S. Embassy in Beijing: the building was surrounded by rapidly nationalist Chinese students, Americans were attacked and not allowed to leave the compound, the walls were battered with paint, stones, and bricks, and anti-American remarks were written on the walls surrounding the area. During all this, the Chinese police and army stood by and watched.

Proving for at least the 188th time that Chomsky-like equations of the concept of nationalism and patriotism so common to left-wing intellectuals and college freshmen alike, the U.S. responded with great restraint. The Presidents calls for resolutions to the issue were statesman-like, calm and rational. The Administration did everything it could to avoid making statements or arguments that were likely to arouse anger in the American public.

Eventually, the matter was resolved, although we do not think the Chinese are aware of the damage inflicted by the incident on bi-lateral relations, so drunk with their own economic and nationalist fervor are they. No doubt they assume that since we didnt bang our shoes on podiums and issue threats that we are weak, decadent and likely to bow before their might.

There are some very, very old Japanese and German gentlemen still around that could enlighten Beijing on the folly of those assumptions, but we doubt the PRC leadership is in a very reflective mood these days.

Now Chinese rage is directed at the Japanese. From time to time Chinese anger over Japanese school-book treatment of WWII erupts; this has happened so many times there appears to be a script written somewhere.

Except, now it appears that the more radical nationalist elements in Shanghai has tossed the script aside and are protesting Japan with ever-increasing vehemence. The Japanese Government, not unreasonably given the honor issue at stake, is unwilling to set the matter aside as did the United States (publicly, that is; privately we did not let the matter go and compensation was paid) and has demanded that the PRC apologize.

The result is a showdown between two arch-rivals that illustrates yet again the limits of U.S. power and influence. To our policy wonks and foreign policy experts, the growing economic power of the PRC as a result of economic liberalism should lead the PRC to behave in a more normative fashion. Since the modern market economy is now central to both the PRC and Japan, the two nations should be moving into a convergence of issues, leading to more polite and co-operative bi-lateral relations.

Such are the dreams of the tenured and the honored. In reality, the age-old nationalisms continue to be more powerful than the pull of WTO treaties and the fact that both nations peoples lunch at McDonalds.

Perhaps a University of California professor can be dispatched to explain to Tokyo and Beijing that international law can solve the conflict?

Or perhaps Teddy Roosevelts dictum that we speak softly, carry a big stick, and alwaysalwaysexpand the power and prestige of the United States Navy in both the Pacific and the Atlantic was much more prescient than even that great President could have dared imagine.

Sadly, this argument is more than correct. Even if we had demanded China live up to its promises and agreements before we handed them Most Favored Nation trading status and WTO membership, they still would have acted in the same way they are now.

Regardless though, their nationalism and their "need" to compete with Japan and dominate Asia will be their undoing.

Sadly, this argument is more than correct. Even if we had demanded China live up to its promises and agreements before we handed them Most Favored Nation trading status and WTO membership, they still would have acted in the same way they are now.

Regardless though, their nationalism and their "need" to compete with Japan and dominate Asia will be their undoing.

Click to expand...

This is interesting. Why was it that USA let China become Most Favored Nation at all? Is there a bond betweens USA and China that is... not so obvious? I think China is favoured in more ways, like with the Olympics. They have in turn really done nothing to show their good will?

This is interesting. Why was it that USA let China become Most Favored Nation at all? Is there a bond betweens USA and China that is... not so obvious? I think China is favoured in more ways, like with the Olympics. They have in turn really done nothing to show their good will?

What will their undoing result in? Uprising? (Is that a good thing?)

Click to expand...

I think the bond right now is purely a financial one with hopes that this will provide an incentive for further freedoms.

Most countries strive to access the enormous potential of Chinise market. The interest in business is rarely hindered by political opinions. Also it seems as it is esier to accept a "bad behavior" of a nation if the economical gains are big.

As for companies they act for profit, - as always. One can count on that they never cut their profit as long as their actions are within the law. And sometimes even that isn't enough.

But in the case of USA, I wonder if the relation with China also is a practical example of "Keep your friends close, but your enemies even closer"?

Most countries strive to access the enormous potential of Chinise market. The interest in business is rarely hindered by political opinions. Also it seems as it is esier to accept a "bad behavior" of a nation if the economical gains are big.

As for companies they act for profit, - as always. One can count on that they never cut their profit as long as their actions are within the law. And sometimes even that isn't enough.

But in the case of USA, I wonder if the relation with China also is a practical example of "Keep your friends close, but your enemies even closer"?

Click to expand...

It would be nice if the level of thinking/direction in US foreign policy was that wise, but its highly doubtful.

The US has stood by and allowed China to transform itself from a backwater oppressive state into an economic powerhouse with mass holdings of US cash, substantial levels of pilfered US technology and weapon systems that now threaten US allies and US interests.

It would be nice if the level of thinking/direction in US foreign policy was that wise, but its highly doubtful.

The US has stood by and allowed China to transform itself from a backwater oppressive state into an economic powerhouse with mass holdings of US cash, substantial levels of pilfered US technology and weapon systems that now threaten US allies and US interests.

Click to expand...

You managed to find and fit all the scary words in one sentence. Europe does the exact same thing, and belive me there is no long term thinking involved here. Actually we are starting the effort to sell arms to China now, wich is a bit... worse, really. but obvious there is no limit of how much the market of China is worth.

You managed to find and fit all the scary words in one sentence. Europe does the exact same thing, and belive me there is no long term thinking involved here. Actually we are starting the effort to sell arms to China now, wich is a bit... worse, really. but obvious there is no limit of how much the market of China is worth.

Click to expand...

That is the flaw of all the Western democracies, especially America. Too often long-term thinking is ignored in favor of short term policies that only yield small benefits but avoid larger risks. To win, you must take risks. As Victor Davis Hanson said of US leadership in the past 25 years, every time the US has acted boldly (mostly these were incidents where the leadership was bowing to the long-term interests and potential of issues and problems) , it has succeeded. Where it has acted with caution (often with an eye on short-term interests and needs), it has failed miserably over and over again.

And somewhere here is the key. I don't belive in "especially America". Our way of live is much more closley linked than it would seem, following threads here. I think America stands out because of its capabilities, not the intentions.

I will seriously have to look in to some recent descision making, not least descisions made in my own country, just to see when we expect to "cash in".

And somewhere here is the key. I don't belive in "especially America". Our way of live is much more closley linked than it would seem, following threads here. I think America stands out because of its capabilities, not the intentions.

I will seriously have to look in to some recent descision making, not least descisions made in my own country, just to see when we expect to "cash in".

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!